"An individual's right to choose." Is this choice of language a conscious thing now?

[CTyankee]

This morning on "Morning Joe" I heard this phrase a couple of times by two different politicos in a discussion of our issues in the current context.

I can't help thinking this is a deliberate rephrasing, probably by Democratic Party advisors, to broaden acceptance of the right to choose beyond just the abortion issue.

If so, I think on balance that this might be a really good thing. Instead of a woman's right, it is now an individual's right. Both are correct, IMO.

Yes, as a feminist in the fight for a LONG time, if this will help the cause I am all for it!

Has anybody else heard this rephrasing?

[hlthe2b]

1. Except that it has been co-opted by anti-vaxxers and other anti-public health a'holes.

[CTyankee]

2. Not in the instances I saw this morning. They were NOT anti-vaxxers. They were sane folks and

the vax craziness was not a subject that had been broached in the contexts where I saw them.

I've been in this political fight for some time now. I worked for both the ACLU and Planned Parenthood and I am sensitive to "dog whistles" or coded language for the anti vaxxers.

[hlthe2b]

4. That is what co-opt means... The RW has taken the term over to perpetuate anti-vaxx/anti-mask

campaigns as a supposed "civil rights" issue.

Have you not seen the video of what is going on at school board meetings and on the steps of state legislatures? Not seen the signs? Not seen video of how F...ker Carlson is using it as a civil rights issue every damned night on Fox?

It is hypocrisy at its worse, but it is hurting us. Badly.

[CTyankee]

5. I have. But these spokespersons were not of that ilk. OR, perhaps they were making a point about

anti-vaxxers that I missed somewhere.

I will repeat: the people I heard using this phrase were not RW lunatics. And their context was not the anti-vaxxer b.s.

So while what you say could be repeated by the RW loonies for their own cause, I would agree it is bad. But the context was not this.

[hlthe2b]

6. Of course not. They weren't the "Co-Opters"

Not sure why that point is seemingly putting us at odds.

[CTyankee]

8. I'll be vigilant then. The context I heard was not crazy and I believe it was used by medical

professionals. Maybe I'm the crazy one, I dunno, I heard it in the context of reproductive rights.

[hlthe2b]

10. I honestly don't get the defensiveness. I NEVER said what you heard (and I did as well this AM)

was a co-opting of the terminology. I merely stated that the RW HAD co-opted it for THEIR OWN AGENDA UNRELATED TO ABORTION RIGHTS.



There is NO reason whatsoever to be defensive. I am not disagreeing with the use on Morning Joe or by those who have always used it to defend abortion rights. Nor am I suggesting you are co-opting the term. I merely mentioned that it is happening (quite INTENTIONALLY by those on the RW to dilute its effectiveness and promote anti-vaxx, anti-mask, anti-public health agenda) and it is hurting us in multiple ways.

[CTyankee]

14. Yes, you are right. It's a fair point and a good one.

I'm glad someone else heard what I heard and had the same interpretation.

Thank you.

[Mad_Machine76]

3. +1

[lagomorph777]

7. Yes - antivaxxers and antimaskers are using it all the time.

[CTyankee]

9. but you hear it in the antivax and antimask context. This was totally different.

Maybe the "invasion of the body snatchers" has begun (and all before I finish my first cup of coffee!).

[Hortensis]

11. "Individual" rights is a hugely important concept, intrinsic to and inseparable

from modern liberalism. And now adopted as a rallying cry by trumpists also.

The concept of that individuals could have inborn rights exploded on the western world with the Enlightenment. The idea that individuals could have rights independent of, and not subject to, the dictates of kings, churches, communities, and families. Talk about RW culture wars! Blood flowed in rivers.

Our nation of course was established on the liberal principles that all men are created equal and endowed with natural rights, including life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

The world "individual" is being used by the right very hypocritically because as Americans they were taught to revere the concept, but conservatives naturally tend to (to varying degrees) subjugate individual rights to the good, and naturally hierarchical structure, of the whole. "The whole" typically represented by Authority, and that current embodied by Der Leader.

Of course, the libertarianism the Koch types drenched them with elevates personal freedom above all other principles (for some extremists it's the only principle). So, the RW mob are loudly proclaiming their right to individual freedom as a justification for taking away the freedoms of everyone. That they are able to do this without being troubled by awareness or dissonance, or fear for themselves and their own, is just one of the wonders of them.

[CTyankee]

12. I wish I had a link to what they were discussing, but MORE IMPORTANTLY, the context!

[Hortensis]

13. Yes. It still struck me as very desirable to frame discussion

in terms of the principles our liberal democracy (civilization itself!) is based on.

Naturally enough, though, the right seeking to destroy it will reframe, redefine all terms and principles into lies to serve them.

The winner of the vocabulary battles wins the people through election day.